That's not entirely true. For example, a 2'x2' square cannot fall into a 2' diameter circular hole. Why do people always thing the lid has to be the same shape/size as the hole? Even manhole covers are slightly larger than the holes (though they are the same shape).
You can use mod_ssl for that. I personally used Apache-SSL, because it was easier for me (back when I had to compile instead of using the RPMs). Now I don't know what I'm using. There apparently is a/. article comparing the two (usual/. caveats apply), if you care.
When have you ever seen a system that uses two fisheye lenses procuce a panoramic image. If you have, then send this proof to the prof and get this patent out of the way. Otherwise, QUIT SCREAMING "PRIOR ART"!
This brings up something that I've wondered about patents. Do they really prevent a person from implementing the patent and using it for themselves. I understand if you were making a program to make the imges and then selling/distrubuting that. But if you make the program to make the images, and only you use.have that program, and instead are using/distributing the images, then is that really a violation of patent law? IANAL.
So, if you were to use an additional 3 gigs (assuming HD gigs and not memory gigs), you would end up being charged an additional $1050AU. I haven't been able to find the Freedom Plan on their site (you need to fill out forms with area codes and such that I don't know), but from the plans I can find, they are not charging anywhere near this. It make me wonder where did they get this number from? If you buy a second account, can you get 6 gigs for less? Why is it so much for 3 more gigs? The overhead costs are taken care of by the first fee.
These are the kind of facts and questions customers should present to the custer service representatives. When they say they don't know the answer or cannot answer the questions, ask for them to transfer you to someone who can answer them. Let them know that they are not just charging you, they are massively penalizing you for going over the limit.
The reason the article is concerned with NT and not 2000 is because they are an insurance company that insures actual systems. There has not been a massive migration to 2000. Even at my work, we have 2000 on the workstaions, but are still using NT 4 for the PDC and exchange servers.
The fact that NT has been out for 5 years and is correllated with claims is a major strike against it. If it's fundamental to the OS, then they had 5 years to patch it and haven't gotten it right. If it's because people don't know how to administrate properly, they have had 5 years to develop those skills.
This kind of thing may convince people to migrate to Linux or *BSD when they do move off NT.
This is the same question I was going to ask. I use VNC to connect to my server from windows all the time. It wouldn't be that hard to make dumb kiosks that VNC in. You can make a VNC boot disk, so putting that image in ROM would be a next step.
In fact, one of the million "business plans that I'll never get around to doing" I have is the same thing as Juno only instead of PCs, using those 386-on-a-chips, a modem and a VNC rom image to connect to a central server. That way no one can disable the advertisements, you can upgrade software with a breeze, the units themselves would be less than $100 to manufacture.
The one thing I can see as a problem is that you can't have sound, which is important for kiosks, but not for free internet access.
But you don't have to look at the whole bunch of them individually. And regardless, you don't have to look at them at all. They are sorted, which was the goal.
The article describes a physical mecahnism that is faster than a algorithmic mechanism. This is nothing new. The one I leanred in first year CS was sorting spaghetti sticks. An algorithm will take O(n*log n) steps to sort them, whereas in the physical world it takes O(1) step: you pick them all up and tap the bottom of the cluster on a desk (lining them up, leaving the taller ones sticking out more).
Another example is finding the bounding convex polygon for a set of n points. I don't remember the runtime for the algorithm, but for the real world it's O(n): you get a board, nail in the n points, then find a rubber band and wrapp it around the nails.
The article describes another one of these problems that is solved faster with a physical process, in this case looking up a record in a database. By physically encoding data differently, you can find a record in a large set in a single step (well, maybe not since you still have to FFT the light to find the frequency, so I'm still not sure how this is faster than the O(log n) of an index, remember FFT is also O(log n) where n is the number of frequencies, and you need the number of frequencies to be the same as the number of records so it seems equivelent to me, but there may be some other way of determining the frequency of the altered light).
This can't be used to crack RSA, and it's not a general method of algorithmically running through a large number of possiblilities concurrently, which we get with quantum computers. There may be a way to crack RSA generically with a physical process (didn't Shamir come up with an optical process for 512 bit RSA). But this has nothing to do with that.
I find that massaging the back right under the ribs also helps. Also, there is a program for the palm pilot that is helpful in keeping track when the next one will occur.
I'm guessing the relevent lines in the californian law would be:
502 (c)(1) Access, Alter, Damage, Delete, destroy any data, computer, computer system or network.
502 (c)(2) Knowingly without permission access and copy or make use of any data.
502 (c)(7) Knowingly and without permission accesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer system or network.
which brings us back to the case of the web site. By this law, accessing a web site is illegal, so what is the difference? Does the fact that it's on port 80 give implicit permission to access?? The law doesn't address this. Why doesn't a db on the public internet also give this implicit permission? What other services give implicit permission (port 21 (FTP)? 6660-6670(IRC)?)
Of course, as with all U.S. laws, the letter of the law doesn't really matter: it's the decisions of the case law that define how a law is used.
Even then, a judge may feel like overturning a prior decision.
Acceptance Tests have to pass before the system is handed off to the customer. The customer just designs the tests, they aren't the sole keeper of the tests.
Actually, XP has a whole section on design. You can see in the rules that you do indead have design sessions and use CRC cards to actively communicate in them.
Programmers program and schedule estimates and then miss them by a factor of 3.
You've either studied some XP before or this is a coincidence. It requires that all best estimates are multiplied by the load factor (actually, I think it's called something else now). The suggested method of determining this factor is to start with 3 (the number you stated), then in the next iteration, use the actual load factor from the previous iteration (called "Yesterday's Weather").
Sigh. XP is not a tool for a language war, it's a development methodology. I've done XP in Java (I'm currently not doing XP, just automated testing, refactoring, and short iteration cycle) and it works as it should. I'm sure it would help in C++ (in fact moreso for me, because C++ can leak memory, and two people would be vastly better than one at catching those kinds of mistakes).
Not to mention that the majority of XP has nothing to do with coding, but process and roles. Even if it is easier to refactor in Smalltalk than C++ (and that is an if), refactoring is just a small part of XP.
You aren't even supposed to refactor globally: you just refactor the parts you are working on because that's what the customer is paying you to work on. Because of this, I would say that using an automated refactoring tool is missing a point (certainly not THE point, as all the other practices are just as important and you can fudge a bit on one or two).
XP draws the destinction between Unit Tests and Acceptance Tests. The difference is that Unit Tests are developed by the developers for the developers. Acceptance Tests are developed by the customer to ensure the functionality is there. The customer doesn't literally have to write the Acceptance Tests, but they do have to design them. It is typical for the same company that is writing the code will write the Acceptance tests, but it is certainly possible (and I think preffered) to have a separate company write them.
The Unit Tests are used to test the contract for a unit in the code. They are there to alert later developers that a refactoring has broken a contract. They can then either fix their refactoring, or change the test and code that assumes that contract, which will mostly be discovered by other Unit Tests or Acceptance Tests breaking. This is why the tests must be automated.
I personally run a nightly build on my current project at 4. Then I run the tests at 6. The results are emailed to me, with the failures at the top, and the successes under them.
Slashdot Mirror
It is the cheapest shape with that property.
See my sig
I don't know if this is insightful or funny.
You can use mod_ssl for that. I personally used Apache-SSL, because it was easier for me (back when I had to compile instead of using the RPMs). Now I don't know what I'm using. There apparently is a /. article comparing the two (usual /. caveats apply), if you care.
When have you ever seen a system that uses two fisheye lenses procuce a panoramic image. If you have, then send this proof to the prof and get this patent out of the way. Otherwise, QUIT SCREAMING "PRIOR ART"!
This brings up something that I've wondered about patents. Do they really prevent a person from implementing the patent and using it for themselves. I understand if you were making a program to make the imges and then selling/distrubuting that. But if you make the program to make the images, and only you use.have that program, and instead are using/distributing the images, then is that really a violation of patent law? IANAL.
These are the kind of facts and questions customers should present to the custer service representatives. When they say they don't know the answer or cannot answer the questions, ask for them to transfer you to someone who can answer them. Let them know that they are not just charging you, they are massively penalizing you for going over the limit.
You know, grep has a -c option.
I'm glad the article was on here, otherwise I would have forgotten to tape it (it just started)
The fact that NT has been out for 5 years and is correllated with claims is a major strike against it. If it's fundamental to the OS, then they had 5 years to patch it and haven't gotten it right. If it's because people don't know how to administrate properly, they have had 5 years to develop those skills.
This kind of thing may convince people to migrate to Linux or *BSD when they do move off NT.
There are alternatives.
In fact, one of the million "business plans that I'll never get around to doing" I have is the same thing as Juno only instead of PCs, using those 386-on-a-chips, a modem and a VNC rom image to connect to a central server. That way no one can disable the advertisements, you can upgrade software with a breeze, the units themselves would be less than $100 to manufacture.
The one thing I can see as a problem is that you can't have sound, which is important for kiosks, but not for free internet access.
I'm sure they will do whatever they do in Austrailia
But you don't have to look at the whole bunch of them individually. And regardless, you don't have to look at them at all. They are sorted, which was the goal.
Is it "human interface" or "humane interface"? They mean very different things.
There are 7-qbit quantum computers.
Another example is finding the bounding convex polygon for a set of n points. I don't remember the runtime for the algorithm, but for the real world it's O(n): you get a board, nail in the n points, then find a rubber band and wrapp it around the nails.
The article describes another one of these problems that is solved faster with a physical process, in this case looking up a record in a database. By physically encoding data differently, you can find a record in a large set in a single step (well, maybe not since you still have to FFT the light to find the frequency, so I'm still not sure how this is faster than the O(log n) of an index, remember FFT is also O(log n) where n is the number of frequencies, and you need the number of frequencies to be the same as the number of records so it seems equivelent to me, but there may be some other way of determining the frequency of the altered light).
This can't be used to crack RSA, and it's not a general method of algorithmically running through a large number of possiblilities concurrently, which we get with quantum computers. There may be a way to crack RSA generically with a physical process (didn't Shamir come up with an optical process for 512 bit RSA). But this has nothing to do with that.
I find that massaging the back right under the ribs also helps. Also, there is a program for the palm pilot that is helpful in keeping track when the next one will occur.
Preferences|Exclude Stories from the Homepage|Authors. Check JonKatz. Press "savehome". Worked great for me.
502 (c)(1) Access, Alter, Damage, Delete, destroy any data, computer, computer system or network.
502 (c)(2) Knowingly without permission access and copy or make use of any data.
502 (c)(7) Knowingly and without permission accesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer system or network.
which brings us back to the case of the web site. By this law, accessing a web site is illegal, so what is the difference? Does the fact that it's on port 80 give implicit permission to access?? The law doesn't address this. Why doesn't a db on the public internet also give this implicit permission? What other services give implicit permission (port 21 (FTP)? 6660-6670(IRC)?)
Of course, as with all U.S. laws, the letter of the law doesn't really matter: it's the decisions of the case law that define how a law is used. Even then, a judge may feel like overturning a prior decision.
Acceptance Tests have to pass before the system is handed off to the customer. The customer just designs the tests, they aren't the sole keeper of the tests.
Actually, XP has a whole section on design. You can see in the rules that you do indead have design sessions and use CRC cards to actively communicate in them.
You've either studied some XP before or this is a coincidence. It requires that all best estimates are multiplied by the load factor (actually, I think it's called something else now). The suggested method of determining this factor is to start with 3 (the number you stated), then in the next iteration, use the actual load factor from the previous iteration (called "Yesterday's Weather").
You aren't even supposed to refactor globally: you just refactor the parts you are working on because that's what the customer is paying you to work on. Because of this, I would say that using an automated refactoring tool is missing a point (certainly not THE point, as all the other practices are just as important and you can fudge a bit on one or two).
The Unit Tests are used to test the contract for a unit in the code. They are there to alert later developers that a refactoring has broken a contract. They can then either fix their refactoring, or change the test and code that assumes that contract, which will mostly be discovered by other Unit Tests or Acceptance Tests breaking. This is why the tests must be automated.
I personally run a nightly build on my current project at 4. Then I run the tests at 6. The results are emailed to me, with the failures at the top, and the successes under them.